The Coast Guard s Role in Safeguarding Maritime

The Coast Guard’s Role in Safeguarding

Maritime Transportation: Selected Issues

(name redacted)

Specialist in Transportation Policy

July 15, 2016

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R44566

The Coast Guard’s Role in Safeguarding Maritime Transportation: Selected Issues


Summary Congress has made the U.S. Coast Guard responsible for safeguarding vessel traffic on the

nation’s coastal and inland waterways. Congress typically passes Coast Guard authorization bills

every one to two years and appropriates funds to the agency annually under the Department of

Homeland Security appropriations bill.

The fleet of vessels the Coast Guard inspects for safety reasons recently doubled because the

agency is now responsible for inspecting tugs and towboats that push or pull barges (towing

vessels), in addition to ships. In June 2016 the Coast Guard issued a final rule on this matter. The

Coast Guard is now considering an hours-of-service limit for crews working on towing vessels in

an effort to reduce accidents caused by fatigue and is reevaluating the crewing requirements for

certain seagoing barges. These potential changes are controversial and could raise the cost of

transporting petroleum and chemical products by barge.

Other current controversies related to the Coast Guard’s vessel safety responsibilities include the

following:

Whether the agency should place greater reliance on nonprofit vessel

classification societies to perform vessel inspections in place of Coast Guard

personnel, as recommended by an independent review panel requested by

Congress.

Enforcement of new international rules requiring shippers of containerized cargo

to more accurately verify the weight of their shipments; U.S. agricultural

exporters contend this will significantly complicate and add costs to their

shipments.

The Coast Guard’s ability to operate in the Arctic, where a decline in sea ice

during the late summer has led to increased maritime activity.

The potential for replacing physical aids to navigation, such as channel marking

buoys and beacons, with virtual aids utilizing GPS and electronic charts, at

significant cost saving.

The potential use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to increase the efficiency

and reduce the cost of Coast Guard sea patrols.

Guidelines for the safe refueling of ships using liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Enforcement of cleaner fuels for ships; cleaner fuels are reportedly causing some

ships to have engine problems and are believed by some to be part of the reason

for a ship collision in Houston in March 2015.



Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Towing Vessel Safety....................................................................................................................... 1

Tug/Towboat Crew Work Hours ............................................................................................... 2 Crew Size on Articulated Tug-Barges ....................................................................................... 2

Vessel Safety Inspections ................................................................................................................ 3

Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rule for Containers ........................................................................... 4

The Coast Guard Role in VGM ................................................................................................. 5

Arctic Polar Code ............................................................................................................................ 5

Passenger Vessel Lifesaving Equipment ......................................................................................... 6

Accident Data .................................................................................................................................. 6

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates .............................................................................................................. 7

Electronic Navigation ...................................................................................................................... 7

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) ................................................................................................ 8

Emission Control Areas (ECAs) ...................................................................................................... 8

LNG Bunkering ............................................................................................................................... 9

Appendixes

Appendix. Maritime Safety: Key Elements .................................................................................... 11

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 15


Congressional Research Service 1

Introduction The U.S. Coast Guard is the nation’s principal law enforcement authority on U.S. waters. Its

missions include maritime safety and security, marine environmental protection, search and

rescue, drug and migrant interdiction, fisheries enforcement, and defense readiness. The Coast

Guard’s responsibilities are specified in legislation establishing the agency as well as

authorization bills typically passed by Congress every one to two years and in Department of

Homeland Security appropriations acts. This report discusses selected issues related to the

agency’s mission safeguarding maritime transportation, particularly those that have arisen in

recent Coast Guard authorization or appropriations legislation or hearings.1

To carry out its safety mission, the Coast Guard interacts with key maritime safety institutions:

harbor pilots, vessel traffic services and marine exchanges, classification societies (independent

third-party inspectors), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and ship flag registries.

The Appendix provides background information on these institutions.

Towing Vessel Safety In 2004, Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish an inspection regime for towing

vessels—the tugs or towboats that push or pull barges—similar to that which exists for ships (The

Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, P.L. 108-293, Section 415). This

inspection regime was to include establishing structural standards for towing vessels as well as

standards for the number and qualifications of crew members. Section 409 of the 2004 act also

authorized the Coast Guard to evaluate an hours-of-service limit for crews on towing vessels. In

the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-281, Section 701) Congress directed that the

final rule be issued by October 15, 2011. The Coast Guard missed this deadline, but did issue a

final rule pertaining to the inspection of vessels on June 20, 2016, while leaving the hours-of-

service limit for further consideration and potentially a separate rulemaking.2 Inspection of these

vessels will add about 2,500 vessels to the Coast Guard’s marine inspection program,

approximately doubling the number of vessels the agency inspects.

The new safety requirements for towing vessels are going into effect at a time when more crude

oil and chemicals are being transported by barge due to an increase in domestic production of oil

and of natural gas, which is a feedstock for many chemical plants.3 According to oil spill data

compiled by the Coast Guard,4 from 1995 to 2011 (the latest year available) barges spilled about

2.7 times more oil in U.S. waters than did tanker ships. During this time, the number of oil spill

incidents and the amount spilled annually have declined significantly for both barges and

tankers.5

1 For a report on the Coast Guard’s role in ballast water management, see CRS Report R44181, The Vessel Incidental

Discharge Act: Background and Issues, by (name redacted) . For discussion of issues specific to oil spills, see CRS

Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance, by (name redacted) . 2 81 Federal Register 40004, June 20, 2016. 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Internal U.S. Waterway Monthly Indicators; http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/. 4 U.S. Coast Guard, Polluting Incidents In and Around U.S. Waters, A Spill/Release Compendium: 1969-2011,

Washington, DC; January 2013, http://homeport.uscg.mil/. 5 For further information, see CRS Report R43653, Shipping U.S. Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and

Safety Issues, by (name redacted).

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/R?d111:FLD002:@1(111+281)



Tug/Towboat Crew Work Hours

In its 2011 notice of proposed rulemaking on work hours, the Coast Guard stated that a typical

towing vessel schedule providing six hours of work followed by six hours of rest gradually

increases crew members’ fatigue levels over a multi-day voyage.6 The Coast Guard cited a

number of expert studies supporting this contention. Barge operators filed comments opposed to

addressing hours of service as part of this particular rulemaking (which also included the

proposed rules on tug vessel inspection), while maritime unions have filed comments in favor of a

mandatory eight-hour rest period.7 The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) filed

comments reiterating its support for a crew schedule that allows for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep

per 24-hour period (which could require a 10-hour rest period). A report by a group of experts in

sleep and circadian biology at Northwestern University contends that a rotating schedule of six

hours of work followed by six hours of rest (referred to as the “square-watch system”) does allow

for adequate sleep by barge crews.8

The Coast Guard’s decision on hours of service for barge crews could have important

ramifications for the economics of barge transportation. For example, providing for longer rest

periods could require towing vessels (like ships) to employ three teams of crew rather than two,

potentially increasing their costs.

Crew Size on Articulated Tug-Barges

The Coast Guard is currently reexamining the crewing requirements for articulated tug-barges

(ATBs).9 An ATB is a coastal tank barge designed for open seas that can hold 50,000 to 185,000

barrels of oil.10

Some recently built ATBs can carry 240,000 to 340,000 barrels, a capacity

comparable to that of coastal tankers. Seagoing barges have speeds of about 10 knots (12 miles

per hour), a few knots slower than a tank ship.

According to an original designer of the ATB, “the American coastwise shipping business has

grown in a way that differs from many other nations. The high cost of manning and building ships

has led over the years to a coastwise transportation network dominated by tugs and barges.”11

ATBs are sometimes referred to as “rule breakers” within the maritime industry because they

operate with smaller crews.12

The Coast Guard determines crewing requirements based on the

registered tonnage of a vessel, which for barges includes only the tug, not the barges the tug may

be pushing. As a result, an ATB typically has a crew of 6 to 12, versus 21 to 28 for a tank ship.

The precise number for any particular vessel depends on that vessel’s level of advanced

technology (more automated vessels may need smaller crews).

6 76 Federal Register 49976-50050, August 11, 2011. 7 See http://www.regulations.gov, docket no. USCG-2006-24412. 8 Transportation Research Board, Enhancing Sleep Efficiency on Vessels in the Tug/Towboat/Barge Industry, NCFRP

Report 36, 2016; http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_036.pdf. 9 The Coast Guard has tasked the Towing Safety Advisory Committee to make recommendations for updating its

manning policy with respect to ATBs; (Task #15-02), http://homeport.uscg.mil/tsac. 10 It is called “articulated” because the bow of the tug fits into a notch in the stern of the barge and the tug is hinged to

the barge on both sides of its hull, allowing fore and aft (pitch) movement, such as over sea swells. 11 Robert P. Hill, Ocean Tug & Barge Engineering, “The Articulated Tug/Barge – ATB: The History and State of the

Art,” n.d. 12 See: Jeff Cowan, “The Articulated Tug Barge (ATB) Quandary,” February 13, 2013; Robert P. Hill, “Responding to

“The Articulated Tug Barge Quandary,” April 5, 2013; and Tom Allegretti, “Safe Operation, Proven Results,” April 17,

2013, all at http://www.MarineLink.com.



If the Coast Guard were to require ATBs to carry larger crews, it could reduce their economic

advantage compared to tankers. Such an outcome occurred previously with a precursor to the

ATB called the integrated tug barge; when the Coast Guard increased their manning requirements

in 1981, integrated tug barges lost their economic advantage, and none have been built since.13

The Coast Guard increased manning requirements because integrated tug barges operated

essentially as ships since the tug and barge seldom separated. While ATBs are designed for easier

separation of tug and barge, they also seldom separate. A river barge can be used in “drop and

swap” operation—that is, the tugboat can drop a loaded barge at a facility where it can be used for

storing product while the tugboat is free to make other barge movements—but the tugs designed

for ATBs sail poorly without the barge, so they generally do not perform drop and swap

operations.14

Some stakeholders have criticized the distinction in crewing requirements between ships and

ATBs because they believe it distorts the domestic shipping market by encouraging the use of

otherwise less efficient barges instead of ships.15

Another possibility is reevaluating the manning

requirements of coastal tankers.

Vessel Safety Inspections In the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-281,

Section 605), Congress asked for an independent review of Coast Guard requirements for U.S.-

flag vessels that are different from international standards. The expert panel convened by the

Transportation Research Board concluded in a 2016 report that the Coast Guard’s requirements

for vessel equipment in many cases differ from standards set by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO, a United Nations body described in the Appendix) but do not provide a

higher level of safety.

The expert panel found that stricter U.S. equipment requirements could discourage owners from

registering their ships under the U.S. flag. Most manufacturers do not build their equipment to

requirements of the relatively small U.S.-flag fleet. The report also recommended that the Coast

Guard accept international practices for “reduced manning” of engine room operations with

automated equipment (particularly for ship operators with proven safety track records) rather than

requiring additional equipment, trial periods, and a period of Coast Guard onboard observation.

The report suggested that the Coast Guard rely more on independent vessel classification

societies (described in the Appendix) to perform inspections of U.S.-flag vessels, particularly

because the classification societies update their equipment standards more frequently than the

Coast Guard does.16

While the Coast Guard testified in April 2016 that it was taking steps in line with the TRB

report’s recommendations, it noted that the container ship El Faro, which sank in a hurricane near

Puerto Rico in October 2015 (killing all 33 crew members) was enrolled in a classification

13 Navigation Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC)-2-81, February 25, 1981. 14 George H. Reid, Primer of Towing, 3rd ed. (Centreville, MD: Cornell Maritime Press, 2004), p. 22. 15 IHS Global Insight, An Evaluation of Maritime Policy in Meeting the Commercial and Security Needs of the United

States, January 7, 2009, p. 37. 16 Transportation Research Board, “Impact of United States Coast Guard Regulations on United States Flag Registry,”

Letter Report, 2016; http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/173981.aspx.



society inspection program. The Coast Guard said it would wait for the results of official

investigations into the sinking before considering changes to vessel inspections.17

Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rule for Containers Congress has held two hearings that addressed a new IMO rule concerning the weight of shipping

containers.18

The rule, which took effect July 1, 2016, requires shippers (that is, the owners of

cargo being imported and exported) to verify the gross mass (VGM) of shipping containers they

are tendering for ocean transportation.19

The intent of the new rule is to avoid unsafe conditions

caused by containers weighing more than the shipping documentation indicates, potentially

endangering dockworkers and destabilizing vessels.20

Under the VGM rule, an ocean carrier is not allowed to load any container without information

about its gross weight—the weight of the cargo and any dunnage (such as pallets and bracing

material) plus the empty weight of the container (the tare weight). A shipper can provide this

information either by weighing the loaded container on a scale or by calculating the gross weight

as the sum of the cargo weight and the tare weight of the container, which is indicated on the

container door.

U.S. exporters of agricultural commodities claim the VGM rule will complicate and significantly

add costs to their supply chains.21

Cotton exporters noted that humidity significantly increases the

weight of their product while in transit to ports. An exporter of animal hides noted that its product

can be highly variable as to weight and claims it would therefore have to acquire scales to weigh

every container upon loading. Shippers that transfer cargo from larger domestic truck trailers into

the smaller ocean shipping containers near export ports also have claimed providing VGM will be

problematic.

Some U.S. exporters appear to have been caught off guard by the rule and requested more time to

work out the logistics of complying with it. During development of the VGM rule at the IMO, the

Global Shippers Forum negotiated the second option—calculating weight based on the weight of

cargo plus container tare weight. Of the two main groups that represent U.S. ocean container

shippers, only one of them, the National Industrial Transportation League, is a member of the

Global Shippers Forum. The other group, the Agricultural Transportation Coalition, is not.

17 Testimony of Rear Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Assistant Coast Guard Commandant for Prevention Policy, Hearing:

Maritime Transportation Safety and Stewardship Programs, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, April 14, 2016. 18 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime

Transportation, Maritime Transportation Safety and Stewardship Programs, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 14, 2016;

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface

Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security, The State of the U.S. Maritime Industry:

Stakeholder Perspectives, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 20, 2016. 19 The new rule is an amendment to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS). 20 World Shipping Council, “History of the IMO Effort to Improve Container Safety,” May 2014,

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-

issues/safety/history_of_imo_effort_to_improve_container_safety_final_aug_2013.pdf. 21 Public meeting to discuss the VGM rule with presentations by the U.S. Coast Guard, certain agricultural exporters,

and other stakeholders; hosted by the FMC; February 18, 2016.



The Coast Guard Role in VGM

The Coast Guard has stated that no fines or monetary penalties will be imposed as a means of

enforcing the VGM rule. The Coast Guard does not scrutinize the loading and shipping

documentation of individual containers, except for those labeled as containing hazardous

material. However, if it were to become aware of a container without a VGM, it would enforce

the “do not load” requirement until a VGM was provided.

The Coast Guard reportedly has stated that it will not be implementing a rulemaking concerning

the VGM and has suggested the issue of accurate container weights is a commercial matter to be

worked out between ocean carriers and their customers (shippers).22

In 1994, the IMO adopted an

amendment requiring a shipper to ensure, before loading a container on board a ship, that the

gross weight of the container is in accordance with the gross weight declared on the shipping

documents. At a 1990 congressional hearing, the Coast Guard testified that it had initiated

development of this amendment and that it was playing a major role urging its adoption by the

IMO.23

In a 2012 congressional hearing, the Coast Guard indicated that it supported work that had

been underway at the IMO since 2011; this work would eventually become the November 2014

SOLAS amendment requiring verified container weights.24

Arctic Polar Code The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 contained a provision to facilitate development of an

Alaskan port along the Bering Strait that the Coast Guard could use as a base of Arctic operations

(Section 531 et al). At a July 2016 hearing, the Coast Guard indicated its preferred strategy was to

rely on mobile assets (vessels and aircraft) and seasonal bases of operation rather than pursue a

permanent port in the Arctic.25

Less sea ice during late summer has led to increased maritime

activity in the Arctic. The Bering Strait along the west coast of Alaska is the entrance and exit

waterway for ships transiting the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s north coast as well as the

Northwest Passage through the Canadian archipelago. The latter appears to be far less viable as a

route for large commercial vessels, as it is more constricted by shallow and narrow straits and

unpredictable ice movement. Most cargo ship activity has taken place along the Northern Sea

Route, while cruise vessel excursions have increased in the Northwest Passage. Before the recent

fall in oil prices, there was also exploratory oil drilling activity off Alaska’s North Coast.

The Coast Guard has defined a shipping lane in the Bering Strait and continues to work on

improving its ability to operate in the Arctic; its search and rescue capability is a priority.26

The

Coast Guard was also instrumental in developing a specific IMO code for ships sailing in the

22 “U.S. Coast Guard Urged to Clarify SOLAS Position After Apparent Flip-flop,” Journal of Commerce, March 3,

2016. 23 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Investigations and

Oversight, Road Damage and Safety Effects of Overweight Trucks Carrying Intermodal Containers, 101st Cong., 2nd

sess., June 27,28; September 13, 1990, p. 111. 24 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime

Transportation, Recent Regulation of the Maritime Industry: Ensuring U.S. Job Growth While Improving

Environmental and Worker Safety, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., April 26, 2012, p. 19. 25 Oral testimony of Admiral Charles D. Michel, Coast Guard Vice Commandant, House Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Coast Guard Arctic Implementation

Capabilities, July 12, 2016. 26 For further discussion, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress,

coordinated by (name redacted) .



Arctic that is expected to go into effect January 1, 2017. The code contains requirements related

to ship construction, lifesaving equipment, and crew training.

Passenger Vessel Lifesaving Equipment In the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-207) as modified by the Coast

Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Section 608), Congress required that cruise ships install

technology for capturing images of passengers falling overboard or detecting passengers falling

overboard, if possible, depending on the extent that such technology is available. In the Coast

Guard’s notice of proposed rulemaking implementing this provision,27

the Coast Guard states that

most cruise lines are employing video cameras that record a passenger going overboard (with date

and time to aid search and rescue). Most cruise lines are not employing detection systems because

they have found that this technology does not yet work reliably.

Congress has debated whether smaller passenger vessels, such as tour boats and harbor ferries,

should be equipped with lifeboats or inflatable rafts that would keep passengers completely out of

the water as opposed to the current regulation that these boats be equipped with life floats that

keep passengers afloat but not out of the water (and thus still subject to hypothermia). The 2015

Coast Guard Authorization Act requires the former for vessels built in 2016 or thereafter and that

operate in cold waters as determined by the Coast Guard (Section 301).

Accident Data In the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Section 307), Congress requested that the Coast

Guard indicate how it intends to implement the Department of Homeland Security Inspector

General’s (IG’s) recommendations for improving marine casualty reporting. The IG, as well as

other observers, has noted that the number and quality of the Coast Guard’s investigations and

reports of marine accidents, as well as the lack of a “near-miss” reporting system, are missed

opportunities to learn from past incidents. The May 2013 IG audit concluded:

28

The USCG does not have adequate processes to investigate, take corrective actions, and

enforce Federal regulations related to the reporting of marine accidents. These conditions

exist because the USCG has not developed and retained sufficient personnel, established

a complete process with dedicated resources to address corrective actions, and provided

adequate training to personnel on enforcement of marine accident reporting. As a result,

the USCG may be delayed in identifying the causes of accidents; initiating corrective

actions; and providing the findings and lessons learned to mariners, the public, and other

government entities. These conditions may also delay the development of new standards,

which could prevent future accidents.

The IG found that at the 11 sites it visited, two-thirds of accident inspectors and investigators did

not meet the Coast Guard’s own qualification standards. The IG stated that the shortage of

27 80 Federal Register 2350, January 16, 2015. 28 DHS, Office of Inspector General, “Marine Accident Reporting, Investigations, and Enforcement in the U.S. Coast

Guard,” OIG-13-92, May 2013; http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-92_May13.pdf. The Towing

Safety Advisory Committee also has recommendations for improving accident reporting; https://homeport.uscg.mil/cgi-

bin/st/portal/uscg_docs/MyCG/Editorial/20160505/TSAC%20Task%2013-

09%20Final%20Report_Marine%20Casualty%20Reporting.pdf?id=4d0e8d483ddeb440f9437a16b3a71547f57d3c30&

user_id=8afb946da4be8ca9d7d6d7038a1275d7.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/R?d111:FLD002:@1(111+207)



qualified personnel would be further compounded by the new towing vessel safety regime, which

would expand the inspection workload.

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates Congress has long tasked the Coast Guard with determining U.S. pilotage rates for foreign trading

vessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes.29

(See Appendix for a

description of the role of harbor pilots.)30

A ship navigating the entire system from the mouth of

the St. Lawrence River to the Port of Duluth, MN, must hire and pay for five pilots, two of them

Canadian for the easternmost portions of the St. Lawrence River. In March 2016, the Coast Guard

increased pilotage rates so that the 37 American pilots each would receive a total compensation of

$326,000 per year, with 10 days off each month during the nine-month shipping season between

late March and late December.31

The Coast Guard determined this rate based on the compensation

of Canadian pilots and its judgement as to the rate necessary to attract a sufficient number of

pilots to avoid traffic delays.

Great Lakes ports contend that the cost of pilotage at this rate now exceeds a ship’s daily

operating cost in the Great Lakes and is eroding the competitiveness of the Great Lakes

navigation system.32

Great Lakes ports have sued the Coast Guard arguing its methodology for

determining pilotage rates violates the Administrative Procedures Act.33

Electronic Navigation A primary and resource-intensive function of the Coast Guard is installing and maintaining aids to

navigation (ATON). This includes buoys, beacons, and other visual aids which mark and guide

vessels through harbor and waterway channels (see “Marine Exchanges and Vessel Traffic

Services” in the Appendix for further explanation of how ships navigate in harbors). According

to the Coast Guard, there are about 50,000 federally owned visual aids, and an equal number of

nonfederal visual aids. Because storms or ice can move buoys out of place and channels can

move due to shoaling, the Coast Guard services about 134 buoys and fixed aids to navigation on

an average day.34

Part of the Coast Guard’s fleet includes 68 “buoy tenders,” which are vessels

designed for the proper positioning of channel markers.

Mariners continue to rely on these physical visual aids even though vessels are now equipped

with electronic navigation aids, such as GPS, Automatic Identification System (AIS), and

electronic charts.35

These technologies, in essence, allow channel markings to be made known to

a vessel operator by electronic transmission (e-navigation), either enhancing or potentially

replacing a physical aid to navigation. The increase in size of the largest ships transiting U.S.

29 In this case, foreign trading vessels means ships of any flag moving to or from overseas ports, not ships trading

across the lakes between the United States and Canada. 30 As per the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-555). 31 81 Federal Register 11908, March 7, 2016. 32 American Great Lakes Ports Association’s final comments on the 2016 Great Lakes Pilotage Rate Increase,

http://www.greatlakesports.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FINAL-Comment-to-Docket-ID-2015-0497.pdf. 33 American Great Lakes Ports Association et al. v. Zukunft et al., No. 16-1019 (D. D.C. filed May 31, 2016);

http://www.joc.com/sites/default/files/u1390826/2016-05-31%20%281%29%20Complaint.pdf. 34 Coast Guard 2016 Budget in Brief; http://www.uscg.mil/budget/docs/2016_Budget_in_Brief.pdf. 35 Whether a back-up system to GPS is needed is debated; see H.R. 1678, 114th Congress.



harbors, as well as a general increase in the number of vessels on many waterways, places a

premium on the accuracy of aids to navigation. The Coast Guard has begun testing electronic aids

to navigation on the west coast and the Mississippi River.36

ATON activities consume about 20% of the Coast Guard’s discretionary budget. While e-

navigation offers the potential of significant savings in maintaining physical aids to navigation,

key questions have yet to be answered. How reliable and resilient is e-navigation? Should e-

navigation replace physical aids or merely supplement them? Are e-navigation aids as accessible

to recreational craft? Are there cybersecurity concerns associated with e-navigation? The Coast

Guard’s ATON budgetary needs in coming years will depend on the answers to these questions.37

Congress has expressed specific interest in the feasibility and advisability of using e-navigation in

U.S. areas of the Arctic Ocean.38

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) In FY2016, Congress provided an additional $12 million above the President’s request for the use

of UAS (drones) aboard national security cutters.39

Congress has also expressed interest in

receiving a more detailed plan showing how the Coast Guard could take advantage of this

technology.40

Like e-navigation, greater use of UAS potentially offers significant efficiencies in

the vessels, aircraft, and crews needed to perform various Coast Guard missions. The Coast

Guard has tested both smaller, hand-held UAS and larger UAS to extend the surveillance range of

its patrol vessels. In April 2015, the Coast Guard announced that it would be testing UAS in the

Arctic for missions such as surveying ice conditions, marine environmental monitoring, marine

safety, and search and rescue.41

The unmanned aircraft being tested can be launched from land or

a Coast Guard cutter.

Emission Control Areas (ECAs) The United States has established a 200-mile perimeter from its coastlines within which maritime

vessels must reduce their emissions. To meet a stricter requirement that was triggered on January

1, 2015, ships are switching to cleaner-burning (lower-sulfur) fuel when they reach this zone.42

The Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing correct fuel use. Given the additional costs

associated with cleaner-burning fuels, ocean carriers are concerned that the level of enforcement

be uniform to ensure a level playing field. The House Appropriations Committee requested that

the Coast Guard provide information on ECA enforcement actions taken since January 1, 2015, as

36 Professional Mariner, “U.S. Coast Guard Begins Testing Synthetic Aids, Virtual Buoys,” August 2014. 37 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,

Hearing; “Finding Your Way: The Future of Federal Navigation Programs,” February 4, 2014. For further information

on developments in navigation technology, see Coast Guard Proceedings, Summer 2015 issue; http://www.uscg.mil/

proceedings/archive/2015/Vol72_No2_Sum2015.pdf. 38 Senate Committee on Appropriations, S.Rept. 114-68, p. 76. 39 H.Rept. 114-215, p. 59. 40 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,

Hearing: “Coast Guard Mission Needs and Resources Allocation,” June 14, 2016. 41 80 Federal Register 18431, April 6, 2015. 42 The stricter emissions requirement is an amendment to Annex VI of MARPOL, the IMO Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (see IMO in the Appendix). For further information of ship emission requirements,

see https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm#interstands.



well as the number of reports by vessels that cleaner-burning fuel was not available and, hence,

the number of waivers or exemptions granted to vessels.43

The recent drop in world fuel prices has dampened the economic impact of ECA requirements,

but additional emission caps pending in 2020 or 2025, which will apply to all shipping routes,

could have a more significant impact on shipping costs, according to an OECD report.44

Reportedly, some ships have experienced loss of propulsion (LOP) during the switchover to

cleaner fuel as well as subsequently while operating with the cleaner fuel. This loss may be due to

“thermal shock,” since the cleaner fuel is more viscous than bunker fuel and does not need to be

heated before entering the engine.45

The temperature difference is believed to cause fuel pump

seizures, leaks, and wax buildup in filters, especially in colder months. In March 2015, the Coast

Guard issued a safety alert to vessels about LOP, stating that “many losses of propulsion have

occurred in different ports and have been associated with changeover processes and

procedures.”46

Loss of propulsion creates serious safety and environmental protection concerns. The Houston

Pilots Association contends that a March 2015 collision between two ships that resulted in a

88,000-gallon chemical spill was most likely caused by a switch to low-sulfur fuel and

consequent loss of speed.47

LNG Bunkering48 Liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a ship fuel may offer a means of meeting the tighter emissions

requirements enforced within emissions control areas.49

Some cargo ships serving U.S.

noncontiguous trades (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico) have converted to LNG. Ferry, cruise ships,

and other vessels that sail entirely or mostly in ECA waters also are interested in LNG. In

February 2015, Harvey Marine launched the first of six LNG-fueled offshore oil service vessels

in the Gulf of Mexico. In April 2015, TOTE Maritime launched the first of two LNG-fueled

container ships that will provide service between Florida and Puerto Rico. Crowley Maritime

recently announced that in 2017 it will take delivery of two LNG-fueled cargo ships for service in

the same trade lane. Carnival Cruise Lines announced that it has ordered four LNG-powered

cruise ships for delivery beginning in 2019.50

The Coast Guard is developing regulations as to the placement of LNG fuel tanks on vessels, the

protocol for LNG refueling operations in ports, and spill response requirements.51

In February

2015, the Coast Guard issued voluntary guidelines for using LNG as vessel fuel, including

43 H.Rept. 114-215, p. 58. 44 American Shipper, “OECD: Ocean Carrier Costs Skyrocketing Under New Fuel Regulations,” May 23, 2016. 45 Ship and Bunker, “Fuel Switching-Related Power Losses Persist in ECAs,” March 30, 2015; Bunkerworld, “Surge In

Engine Blackouts Feared at ECA Borders in 2015,” September 22, 2014. 46 U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Alert 2-15, March 3, 2015; https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg545/alerts/0215.pdf. 47 Houston Chronicle, June 19, 2016. 48 Bunker is an industry term that refers to a ship’s fuel. 49 CRS Report R42566, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal

Programs, by (name redacted) et al. 50 Transportation Research Board, 95th Annual Meeting, Sessions 574 and 776 on natural gas as a marine fuel, January

12 and 13, 2016, Washington, D.C. 51 In February 2015, the Coast Guard issued interim guidelines for LNG bunkering operations;

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2013-1084-0031.



training of personnel, safeguards during fuel transfer operations, safeguards for shoreside LNG

fueling facilities, and the design of barges carrying LNG for fueling operations.52

The guidelines

are not new regulations but identify existing regulations pertaining to the carriage of LNG as

cargo and to storage of LNG in bulk at waterfront terminals. For example, the same safeguards

required for loading or unloading LNG as cargo aboard an LNG tanker are applicable when

transferring LNG to fuel a ship. In April 2012, the Coast Guard issued guidelines regarding the

specifications for LNG engines and fuel system machinery and equipment on vessels.53

LNG-

fueled ship engines are not entirely new, as LNG tankers often have engines that are fueled by

“boil-off” (LNG that has re-gasified in cargo tanks). Both guidelines are issued as policy letters,

not as final rules in a rulemaking procedure, and are meant to inform industry and local Coast

Guard officials about existing regulations that are enforceable with regard to LNG used as fuel.

There may be uncertainty concerning aspects of LNG bunkering that existing Coast Guard

regulations do not specifically address. For instance, a shoreside LNG fueling facility has

different siting needs from an LNG cargo terminal.54

Existing regulations for LNG cargo

terminals therefore may not take into account the surrounding environment that may be different

for an LNG fueling facility, posing different safety issues. Another matter left unclear is whether

LNG-fueled cargo ships may load or unload cargo, passengers, or crew supplies simultaneously

while loading LNG fuel; existing regulations for transferring LNG as cargo do not envision other

operations that an LNG-fueled ship might need to engage in while refueling is taking place. The

guidelines currently state that an LNG fuel supplier should conduct a formal quantitative risk

assessment to assist the Coast Guard in evaluating whether simultaneous operations can occur.

Also, current regulations concerning spill response are written with heavy marine oil or marine

diesel fuel in mind. These requirements are not readily adaptable to LNG, which would vaporize

in the event of a spill.

While the policy letters are intended to assist the Coast Guard in applying a uniform national

policy with regard to LNG fuel, some issues will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The local

Coast Guard captain of the port often is left to make the final determination based on the

information provided by local fueling operators. Some amount of local discretion is not unique to

LNG fueling, as safety and security risk profiles of ports differ significantly due to differences in

geography and mix of maritime activity taking place.

In June 2015, the IMO finalized safety standards, known as the “IGF code,” for ships using LNG

as fuel.55

The standards will become effective January 1, 2017, if they are ratified or adopted by

IMO member states, including the United States. The IGF code will then become an annex to the

Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention, to which the United States is a signatory.

52 80 Federal Register 10131, February 25, 2015. 53 Coast Guard Policy Letter No. 01-12, April 19, 2012; http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/CG-

521.PolicyLetter.01-12.pdf. 54 LNG cargo terminals, whether for import or export, are permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 55 IGF - International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels.



Appendix. Maritime Safety: Key Elements

Harbor Pilots

Maritime pilots play an important role in maritime safety because they drive many of the ships

arriving and departing U.S. harbors. Maritime pilots possess navigational expertise for a

particular harbor and are hired by ocean carriers to take command of their ships for harbor

transits. The pilots board ships at the entrance to a harbor (with use of a pilot boat) and take

position at the bridge alongside the master (captain) of the vessel and other bridge crew. The pilot

will order instructions to the helmsmen to steer the ship through the harbor and may direct

tugboats, if they are assisting. Pilots describe turning a ship like turning a car on ice—it slides

through the turn. Pilotage is described as a process of continually watching how the ship responds

to a maneuver, which will dictate the pilot’s next command. How a ship responds is affected by

the characteristics of the ship, weather, and water conditions. A pilot needs to be aware of

multiple cues: wind, tide and river currents, and (in the case of estuaries) the salt water versus

fresh water mix that affects buoyancy. While the pilot is in command of the navigation of the ship

through the harbor, the captain of the ship remains in command of the ship and retains ultimate

responsibility for its safe passage.

Often the pilot will board the ship with a computer laptop or other handheld device that contains

his or her own set of charts for that harbor as well as ship tracking technology. The laptop may

also be plugged into the ship's navigation console to incorporate the ship's navigation technology

into the pilot's navigation software. When the pilot boards the ship, the captain is required to

inform the pilot about the navigation particulars of the ship, such as the draft, air draft (highest

point on the vessel), and maneuvering characteristics. A “pilot card” is used for this purpose.

Although English is the required language of international shipping, language can be a barrier to

expansive communication between the pilot and captain.

Most U.S. ports make it compulsory for a ship to hire a pilot, although in some ports hiring a pilot

may be voluntary. In these latter cases, if a ship captain regularly calls at a port and is confident

that he or she can navigate the ship through the harbor, the captain may elect not to hire a pilot,

but the shipping line will still be charged either the full pilotage fee or some portion thereof. For

liability reasons, many shipping lines will take on a pilot even if it is not compulsory. On the west

and Gulf coasts, the pilot usually navigates the ship from the harbor entrance to the dock (and

vice versa), but on the east coast, some ports require a "docking pilot" to take over from the pilot

when docking the ship. Docking pilots are usually former tugboat captains and are not members

of the local pilot association. In Louisiana, in addition to hiring a harbor pilot, shipping lines may

also be required to hire one or two "river pilots" depending on how far up the Mississippi River

the ship is transiting (to call at the Port of Baton Rouge or South Louisiana). Especially large

ships may be required to hire two pilots, or a full pilot and an assistant pilot.

A maritime pilot typically works as an independent contractor through the pilot association at a

given port. The association takes care of administrative functions such as dispatching pilots to

vessels, maintaining pilot boats, and billing and collecting pilotage fees. Pilots are assigned to

ships on a rotating basis and the shipping line has no choice in the selection of the pilot. Pilot

associations are regulated by a state board of commissioners, or in some cases, by city

government. Typically, a pilot board is composed of 3 to 10 members who serve part time.

Representation on the board must consist of a specific ratio of pilots, members of the broader

maritime industry in the port area, and members of the public not connected with the maritime

industry. The pilot board is responsible for ensuring the qualifications of the pilots, setting



pilotage fees charged to the vessel operators, and reviewing the performance of pilots.56

Pilotage

fees are based on the draft and tonnage of the vessel and, in some cases, the distance piloted.

Pilots do not work in a competitive environment. Pilot associations are effectively local or

regional monopolies. The pilot association only selects enough member pilots to service the

traffic at hand. Pilot associations chartered by state and local governments have jurisdiction only

over the pilotage of ships in foreign trade—that is, ships carrying import or export cargo.

Congress has decided not to exercise federal control over pilotage of foreign trading ships.

The federal government has jurisdiction over the pilotage of ships in domestic trade, such as a

tanker carrying oil from Alaska to California. Typically, a sea captain engaged in domestic trade

will carry a Coast Guard pilot's endorsement on his or her captain's license and therefore will not

need to hire a pilot upon entrance to a harbor. This type of federal pilot authorization is the most

common. There are also a few independent federal pilots who are not employed by a coastwise

shipping line, but offer their piloting service at the particular port for which they are licensed.

Like a state pilot license, the federal pilot license pertains to a specific port. Therefore, the ship

captain must obtain a pilot license for each port that he or she expects to call on a routine basis.

Generally, all state and local pilots licensed to pilot foreign trade vessels also hold a federal

license to pilot ships in domestic trade. Most state and local pilot associations require a federal

pilot's license as a minimum requirement for being allowed to work toward a state pilot's license.

The federal government will grant a federal pilot’s license to anyone who qualifies, unlike states,

which limit the number of licenses based on the perceived need for pilot services.

Marine Exchanges and Vessel Traffic Services

To assist the pilot and crew with safe navigation, the Coast Guard has established vessel traffic

services (VTS) in many ports. From the VTS, Coast Guard “watchstanders” can monitor and

provide guidance to harbor traffic with the use of electronic communication, radio, radar,

differential global positioning system (DGPS), surveillance cameras, and binoculars. A VTS

operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. VTSs vary depending on the geography and the

nature and volume of vessel traffic in a port area, but they generally are staffed with both

uniformed and civilian Coast Guard watchstanders. Currently there are VTSs in 11 U.S. ports

staffed by 155 civilian and 130 active-duty personnel.

VTSs may also be staffed by members of a “maritime exchange” from which they have evolved.

U.S. ports without a Coast Guard-led VTS have a maritime exchange that provides “VTS-like”

services, and are more accurately called Vessel Traffic Information Services (VTIS). A maritime

exchange may be jointly operated or run by a pilot association and be staffed by pilots. VTSs and

VTISs are funded from some combination of user fees charged to vessel operators, financing

from port authorities, state governments, and the Coast Guard.

The original purpose of maritime exchanges was to alert ship service providers in port (i.e.,

agents, pilots, tugs, stevedores, longshoremen unions, terminals, U.S. Customs, and other vendors

and government agencies) of a ship’s pending arrival. Before the development of current

technology, a lookout was posted with a telescope, signal flags, and flashing signal lights. While

maritime information exchange is still the central function of marine exchanges, in the 1960s and

1970s they also began offering a VHF radio communication and radar system for pilots and

56 A pilot who struck a bridge tower in San Francisco Bay in 2007, causing the ship’s fuel to spill, was later found

medically unfit for the position. After this incident, some states/harbor communities reevaluated their pilotage oversight

boards.



captains to avoid collisions and groundings. Participation was initially voluntary and unregulated

and there were no protocols. However, after a ship collision in San Francisco Bay in 1971,

Congress passed the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-340), which directed the

Coast Guard to establish VTS systems at ports where the Coast Guard deemed them necessary. In

the 1970s, VTSs were established in San Francisco, Puget Sound, New York, New Orleans, and

Houston-Galveston. VTSs were added in Morgan City, Port Arthur (including Lake Charles),

Louisville, Valdez, Los Angeles, and Sault St. Marie thereafter.57

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990,

passed in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, made participation in the VTS mandatory where

they exist.

While VTSs or VTISs might be compared to an air traffic control tower in an airport, the key

difference is that maritime watchstanders do not direct whether and how a vessel is to proceed in

a harbor. For instance, they do not issue orders to pilots about vessel heading and speed. Those

decisions are entirely left to pilots, who maintain open radio communication with other vessels in

the area to avoid collisions. VTSs are an advisory service, not a traffic control center.58

The Coast

Guard describes them as offering a range of four basic services that represent an increasing

continuum of involvement: (1) monitoring of harbor traffic; (2) providing information to mariners

so that they can navigate more safely or efficiently; (3) advising or recommending a course of

action to a vessel (usually infrequently); and (4) in rare circumstances, directing a vessel to move

to a certain location or hold at anchor or at the dock until safe to proceed, but without giving

direct maneuvering orders.59

The level of VTS involvement in harbor navigation varies depending on the circumstances of the

harbor. For instance, in busy harbors or in harbors with a drawbridge, the VTS may enforce a

harbor traffic management plan that dictates one-way traffic or order of procession through a

waterway. In these cases, the VTS could be described as traffic management, as opposed to traffic

control. VTSs could potentially exert more control over harbor traffic in bad weather conditions.

The Coast Guard already has authority to restrict vessel movements during hazardous weather

conditions, but does not regularly do so. In the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-

281, Section 228) Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish a process for marine exchanges

to send relevant navigation information to vessels via the Automatic Identification System, a

short-range communication system among vessels for transmitting vessel headings and speeds,

among other information, to avoid collision.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Due to the international nature of the shipping industry, maritime trading nations have adopted

international treaties that establish standards for ocean carriers in terms of safety, pollution

prevention, and security. These standards are agreed upon by shipping nations through the

International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency that first met in 1959.60

The

Coast Guard represents the United States at the IMO and has been the lead proponent of some

amendments regarding shipping safety and security.

57 For a map of VTS locations, see: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=vtsLocations. 58 Rather than an ATC tower, a closer parallel in aviation may be Flight Service Stations (FSS) which provide weather

briefings and flight planning services largely to general aviation pilots. 59 “U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Services,” Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety and Security Council,

vol. 64, no. 2, summer 2007, pp. 10-13. 60 See http://www.imo.org/ for more information.



Key conventions that the 168 IMO member nations have adopted include the Safety of Life at Sea

Convention (SOLAS), which was originally adopted in response to the Titanic disaster in 1912

but has since been revised several times; the International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which was adopted in 1973 and modified in 1978; and the

Standards for Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), which was

adopted in 1978 with the most recent amendment coming into force January 1, 2017. It is up to

ratifying nations to enforce these standards. The United States is a party to these conventions, and

the U.S. Coast Guard enforces them when it boards and inspects ships and crews arriving at U.S.

ports and the very few ships engaged in international trade that sail under the U.S. flag.

Flag Registration

Like the United States, most of the other major maritime trading nations lack the ability to

enforce IMO regulations as a “flag state” because much of the world’s merchant fleet is registered

under so-called “flags of convenience” or “open-registry” countries. While most ship owners and

operators are headquartered in developed countries, they often register their ships in Panama,

Liberia, the Bahamas, the Marshall Islands, Malta, and Cyprus, because these nations offer more

attractive tax and employment regulatory regimes.61

For instance, crews do not have to be

nationals of these countries.62

Because of this development, most maritime trading nations

enforce shipping regulations under a “port state control” regime—that is, they require compliance

with IMO standards as a condition of calling at their ports. The fragmented nature of ship

ownership and operation can be a further hurdle to regulatory enforcement. It is common for

cargo ships to be owned by one company, operated by a second company (which markets the

ship’s space), and managed by a third (which may supply the crew and other services a ship

requires to sail), each of which could be headquartered in different countries.

Classification Societies

Classification societies are independent third parties that inspect and certify that a ship meets their

specifications in design and operation.63

The inspection process occurs at various stages as the

ship is constructed and periodically after the ship is in operation. Inspection becomes more

thorough as the ship ages. Insurance companies and banks require a ship to be classed before they

will underwrite or finance it and, thus, class certification is necessary if a vessel is to enter and

remain in commercial service. The Coast Guard may refer to a set of classification society

standards in its regulations when identifying requirements that ship operators must meet.

Decades ago the credibility of classification societies began to be questioned because they were

paid by vessel owners who found it advantageous to have their ships built to the societies’

standards (“built to class”). From an insurer’s or banker’s perspective, a classification society had

a conflict of interest if it was being paid by a ship’s owner. In response, some insurers and banks

61 Establishment of the Panama registry can be traced to U.S.-flag cruise ships seeking to avoid prohibition laws in the

1920s. In the 1930s, U.S.-flag ships reflagged under Panama to avoid the U.S. Neutrality Act so as to carry weapons to

Europe. After World War II, U.S. mining interests established the Liberian flag due to political instability in Panama.

Richard Coles, Edward Watt, Ship Registration: Law and Practice, 2nd ed. (London: Informa, 2009). 62 Filipinos account for over a third of the crew population on foreign-flag ships, followed by China (9%), India,

Ukraine, Russia, and Poland. U.S. Maritime Administration, Foreign-Flag Crewing Practices, November 2006. 63 They date back to the mid-18th century when insurers would hire ex-sea captains to survey ships. Their pragmatic

knowledge of ships was useful for insurers assessing risk. Eventually, ex-captains were replaced by naval engineers and

technicians and standards were formalized in writing.



began hiring their own inspectors to survey ships, in addition to requiring class inspection. Also,

classification societies typically have a for-profit side of their business, selling technical expertise

to vessel owners. This places them in competition with one another and raises the possibility that

they might allow for some leeway when enforcing standards in order to gain business.64

Some of the classification societies established a trade association in 1969 to set industry

practices to address these concerns.65

In 2004, Congress required that the Coast Guard not accept

certifications by classification societies that are not members of this trade association or that have

not been approved by the Coast Guard under specified criteria.66

The criteria include the

requirement that the society not be involved in any activity that could be a conflict of interest.67

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Transportation Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

64 "Quality Stem to Stern: The Changing Role of Classification Societies," Marine Technology and SNAME News, vol.

34, no. 3 (July 1997). 65 The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). 66 The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-293, Section 413). The Coast Guard issued a

final rule on August 9, 2012; 77 Federal Register 47544. For a listing of approved classification societies, see

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/acp/. See also 46 U.S.C. §3316. 67 46 C.F.R. §8.230 (a)(23).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

EveryCRSReport.com

Documents

The Coast Guard s Role in Safeguarding Maritime